Afr Gobardhan Naik vs State Of Orissa And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6446 Ori

                    ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK


                       WPC (OAC) NO.2044 OF 2005

         In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
         Constitution of India.
                                ---------------

AFR      Gobardhan Naik                          .....    Petitioner


                                      -Versus-

         State of Orissa and others              .....   Opp. Parties


           For Petitioner     : M/s. Upendra Kumar Samal, B.R.
                                Barik and C.D. Sahoo, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. M. Balabantaray, Addl. Standing Counsel [O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 4]

Mr. P.R.J. Dash, Advocate [O.P. No.3] P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

DECIDED ON : 22.06.2021

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who is a retired police

officer, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to

the opposite parties to pay balance GPF amount with

interest and compounded interest @ 18% per annum on // 2 //

all the retrial benefits, such as, pension, gratuity, GPF,

commuted value of pension and unutilized leave salary

for delayed payment of such dues.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is

that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower

Division Clerk in the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh

in the year 1963. After joining in service, a subscription

account was opened in his name in the same year vide

A/C No. 21657-G.A. (O) and accordingly account slip

was issued to him by the Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad Office, Sundargarh. While he was so

continuing, in the year 1964, he appeared an interview

for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was selected

to undergo training. Consequentially, he was relieved

from the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh on

10.01.1964 and joined in the Police Training College,

Angul on 14.01.1964. During his training period, he was

regularly subscribing to the GPF account. After

completion of training, he was relieved from the Police

Training Centre, Angul in December, 1964 and joined as // 3 //

Sub-Inspector of Police in Sambalpur on 01.01.1965 and

there he continued till May, 1974. Though he was paying

the GPF dues, but he did not receive any account slip for

the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Therefore, he

approached the authority on several occasions, but no

action was taken.

2.1 On attaining the age of superannuation,

he retired from service on 31.03.1997 and submitted all

the relevant documents for the purpose of getting

retirement benefits from the opposite parties. In spite of

several approaches made by the petitioner, since no

action was taken, he filed OA No. 2670 (C) of 1998 before

the Odisha Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to

the opposite parties to pay the balance GPF amount,

gratuity, unutilized leave salary, group insurance deposit

and other retirement benefits, which he is entitled to.

The tribunal, vide order dated 26.11.1998, disposed of

the O.A. with a direction to the opposite parties to give

pension with other benefits. On receipt of the order

passed by the tribunal, the opposite parties partly paid // 4 //

the retirement dues, i.e. pension on 12.09.1999 at old

scale of pay from 01.04.1997 to 01.01.1999 Rs.96,557/-,

commuted value of pension of Rs.60,878/- on

12.09.1999 and gratuity of Rs.48,000/- on 18.03.1999,

without releasing the balance GPF amount and

unutilized leave salary, though he is entitled to get all

retirement service benefits on the date of retirement.

2.2 The Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh,

vide letter no. 1154 dated 29.03.2000, forwarded the

revised calculation sheet of the petitioner in O.C.S. (P)

Form-8 in triplicate with revised LPC for onward

transmission to the Government for revision of pension,

DCRG and commuted value of pension. Though the

petitioner approached the opposite parties to pay all

retirement benefits, but the same were not paid. Due to

non-compliance of the direction given by the Odisha

Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2670 (C) of 1998, he

filed C.P. No. 127 (C) of 2000 and upon hearing the

tribunal issued notice on 28.11.2001 calling upon the

opposite parties to show cause. On receipt of the notice // 5 //

from the tribunal, the Accountant General (A & E),

Orissa again on 11.01.2002 released the gratuity

amount of Rs. 93,200/- without interest out of

Rs.1,48,613/- and commuted value of pension

amounting to Rs.1,18,114/-without interest out of

Rs.1,78,992/- on 11.01.2002. Thereafter, a balance

amount of Rs. 63,944/- with interest towards GPF was

although due, an amount of Rs.42,744/- was paid on

20.03.2002 without any interest.

2.3 Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, even

though petitioner made several grievances, but the

authorities did not consider the same. Consequentially,

the petitioner again approached the Odisha

Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2044 (C) of

2005 seeking aforesaid relief. On being noticed by the

tribunal, the opposite party no.1 filed counter affidavit

admitting the fact that the petitioner retired from

government service on 31.03.1997 as D.S.P. The DG &

IG of Police, Orissa submitted the pension papers on

31.08.1998 and requested to release the pension and // 6 //

commuted value of pension but to withhold gratuity till

receipt of final NDC from them. The pension papers were

forwarded to the AG (A & E), Orissa on 17.10.1998 for

release of pensionary benefits. The final NDC of the

petitioner was received from DG (P), Orissa on

23.10.1998 and the same was forwarded to AG (A & E),

Orissa on 16.11.1998. Consequentially, the AG (A & E),

Orissa released the PPO and CPO on 29.01.1999 and

GPO on 05.03.1999. Upon fixation of his pay in the

O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 and inclusion of past service

rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad Office,

Sundargarh, the D.G (P), Orissa was requested in

Department letter dated 05.02.2000 to furnish proposal

for revision of pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The

D.G (P), Orissa submitted revised proposal on

03.08.2000 with his service book. The service book was

forwarded to Finance Department for concurrence of the

past service rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad

Office, Sundargarh, which was received on 22.06.2001.

Accordingly, the revised pensionary documents were // 7 //

forwarded to the AG (A & E), Orissa on 21.07.2001.

Consequentially, the AG (A & E), Orissa released revised

PPO, CPO and GPO on 28.12.2001. It is stated that there

is no absolute administrative delay in communicating

the pension papers and grant of pension etc. by the

opposite party no.1. As a result, it is not liable to pay

interest as claimed by the petitioner.

2.4 Before the tribunal, the opposite party

no.3 also filed separate counter affidavit stating inter alia

that the petitioner's pension papers were received in the

office of opposite party no.3 on 22.10.1998 and

necessary orders as to payment of pension and

commuted value of pension were issued by opposite

party no.3 on 29.01.1999, i.e. just after taking three

months time, which was the minimum time required for

settlement of a pension case after completing all the

paraphernalia/procedure. With regard to release of

balance GPF amount, it is contended that the petitioner

was allotted two GPF account numbers. On receipt of the

petitioner's final payment application from the concerned // 8 //

Drawing and Disbursing Officer, an amount of

Rs.1,46,551/- was authorized as available balance in

respect of the GPF Account No.22703 P(O) on

10.12.1997. Since there were some irregularities in

respect of deposits made for the years 1991-92 and

1992-93 in the GPF account of the petitioner, a CE

memo dated 10.12.1997 calling for details of the

deposits for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 was also

issued. After receipt of the details from the concerned

DDO and verifying the same with his GPF account, an

amount of Rs. 42,744/- was worked out as due and

admissible and accordingly authorized vide letter dated

06.02.2002 and the same was paid with interest of

Rs.2025/-. Consequentially, for delay in payment of GPF

interest has already been paid, as a result the petitioner

is not entitled to any claim as has been made.

2.5 By way of rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner

disputed such facts and categorically stated that despite

specific provision in the Odisha Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1992 as well as the order of the tribunal passed // 9 //

in O.A. No. 2670 (C) of 1998, the opposite parties have

paid the following retirement benefits at old scale of pay

vide PPO No.300988:-

"1. Pension on 12.09.1999 Rs. 96,557/-

(01.04.1997-01.01.1999)

2. C.V.P on 12.09.1999 Rs.60,878/-

3. Gratuity on 18.03.1999 Rs.48,000/-

Thereafter the S.P. Sundargarh on 29.03.2000 submitted pension paper with revised L.P.C. before the Respondent No.1 for revision of pension, DCRG & CVP.

The A.G. (A & E), Odisha authorized the following revised pension in favour of the Applicant on the following dates :

1. Gratuity on 11.02.2002 Rs.93,000/- out of Rs.1,48,613/- without interest.

2. C.V.P. on 11.02.2002 Rs.1,18,114/- out of Rs.1,78,992/- without interest.

3. G.P.F. on 20.03.2002 Rs.42,744/- out of Rs.63,944/- without interest.

4. Unutilized leave salary on 02.07.2002 Rs.44,478 without any interest.

Further the A.G. (A & E) Odisha authorized the following balance gratuity & C.V.P. in favour of the applicant on the following dates:

1. Gratuity Rs.4,413/- in March 2005 without interest.

2. C.V.P. Rs. 5,648/- in March, 2005 without interest.

// 10 //

Though the Applicant is entitled to get the balance G.P.F. amount Rs.21,200/- but the same has not yet been paid."

The petitioner has further stated that since his

retirement dues were not paid on due date of his

retirement, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest

@ 18% per annum for such delayed payment, in view of

the Govt. of Orissa, P.G. & P.A. Department letter dated

30.12.1999, which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the

writ petition. It is further stated that there is no delay

attributable to the petitioner so as to disentitle him to

get the benefit of interest for delayed payment of

pensionary benefits to the petitioner, as has been stated

by the opposite parties.

3. Although pleadings were completed, on the

abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench, Cuttack, the above noted O.A. No. 2044 (C) of

2005 was transferred to this Court, in pursuance of

order dated 03.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 27440 of

2019 by a Division Bench of this Court, and registered

as above and taken up for hearing.

// 11 //

4. Mr. B.R. Barik, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that as per the provisions contained

in Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992

petitioner's pension papers had been transmitted to the

authority concerned and in view of Rules 58(1), 62 and

64(1) of the Rules, 1992, pensionary benefits were to be

disbursed to the petitioner well within time specified, but

the same has not been complied with. Thereby, the

opposite parties are responsible for non-compliance of

the statutory provisions and for non-payment of the

retiral dues well within time specified they are liable for

payment of interest @ 18% for delayed payment of the

pensionary benefit to the petitioner. To substantiate his

contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the apex

Court in D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L.Rs. v. Uttar Haryana

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2015 (I) OLR (SC) 81.

5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the State, referring to the counter

affidavit filed by opposite party no.1, vehemently

contended that since the service of the petitioner had // 12 //

been regularized during the period when he was

continuing in the office of the Zilla Parishad, the delay

has been caused for release of the pensionary benefits

and, as such, the delay is not attributable to the

authority concerned, rather the delay has been caused

by the petitioner himself. Consequentially, the State

opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest for so

called delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the

petitioner.

6. Though Mr. P.R.J. Dash, learned counsel

had entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3

and has filed a counter affidavit, pleadings of which have

been taken note of by this Court in the foregoing

paragraphs, but none appeared at the time of hearing.

7. This Court heard Mr. B.R. Barik, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Balabantaray,

learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-

opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 through virtual mode, and

perused the record. As pleadings have been exchanged

between the parties and it is an old case of the year // 13 //

2005, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at

the stage of admission.

8. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a

government employee and after his superannuation from

service he is entitled to get pensionary benefits as due

and admissible to him in accordance with law. For

release of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner,

Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 are

applicable. Elaborate provisions in the context have been

prescribed under Rules-57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 65

appearing in Chapter-VIII of the Rules, 1992. Chapter-IV

deals with conditions for grant of pension. Sanctity

attached to expeditious payment to a pensioner is

revealed from the modalities prescribed; some of them

being time bound and even specifying the officials who

are to take steps. Adhering to such provisions, the

petitioner is entitled to get the pensionary benefits as

due and admissible to him in accordance with law within

the time stipulated.

// 14 //

9. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,

(1983) 1 SCC 322, referring to Social Security Law by

Prof. Harry Culvert, it is stated as follows:

" „Pension‟ is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanism primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed."

10. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan

Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, the apex Court observed that

pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be

distributed by the Government to its employees on their

retirement but are valuable rights and property in their

hands and any culpable delay in settlement and

disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of

payment of interest at the current market rate till actual

payment.

11. In Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v.

State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, the apex // 15 //

Court held that pension is not bounty of the State. It is

earned by the employee for service rendered to fall back,

after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and

cannot be arbitrarily denied.

12. In State of Punjab v. Justice S.S.

Dewan, (1997) 4 SCC 569, the apex Court held that

conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is

determined on the basis of length of service and last pay

drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility

and quantum of pension.

The same view has also been reiterated in Dr. Uma

Agarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1212.

13. In Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation v. K.O. Varghese, (2003) 12 SCC 293,

referring to corpus juris secundum, it is stated that the

title 'pension' includes pecuniary allowances paid

periodically by the Government to persons who have

rendered services to the public or suffered loss or injury

in the public service, or to their representative; who are // 16 //

entitled to such allowances and rate and amount thereof;

and proceedings to obtain and payment of such pension.

14. Further, referring to Halsbury's Law of

England 4th Edn. Reissue, Vol.16, in the very same

judgment in Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation (supra), the apex Court held as follows:

"„Pension‟ means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the secretary of state is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme of arrangement having for its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing with retirement benefits and, except in the case of such a lump sum which had been paid to the employee."

15. Considering the meaning attached to the

word 'pension', as stated above, and on analysis of the

same, three things emerge; (i) that the pension is neither

bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet

will of the employer and that it creates a vested right

subject to the statute, if any, holding the field; (ii) that

the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a

payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is social // 17 //

welfare measure rendering social-economic justice to

those who in the 'hey days' of their life ceaselessly toiled

for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age

they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed

that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage

correlated to the emoluments earlier drawn. Its payment

is dependent upon additional condition of impeccable

behaviour even subsequent to retirement.

16. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State

of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630, the apex Court held

that 'pension' is treated to be a deferred salary. It is not a

bounty. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and

has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as

on date of retirement.

17. A Division Bench of this Court in Dhruba

Charan Panda etc. v. State of Orissa, Vol. 88 (1999)

C.L.T. 637 : 1999 (II) OLR 433 applying the ratio in Dr.

Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1212 held

that if there is any delay in payment of pension the

pensioner shall be entitled to 18% interest per annum for // 18 //

the period of delay and such interest shall be recovered

from the person/persons responsible for the delay. While

fixing the rate of interest, the Court kept in view the

minimum bank rate of interest charged for borrowing

from bank.

18. In D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L. Rs. V. Uttar

Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2015 (I) OLR (SC)

81, the apex Court, relying upon their judgment in State

of Kerala. V. M. Padmanabhan Nair mentioned supra

held that for delayed payment of pension and gratuity,

interest has to be granted for the period from the date of

entitlement up to the date of actual payment.

19. In State of Orissa v. Jagannath

Pattanaik [W.P.(C) No. 12024 of 2006, disposed of on

14.12.2017], while upholding the judgment of the Orissa

Administrative Tribunal dated 14.03.2000 passed in O.A.

No. 419 (C) of 2000, a Division Bench of this Court, of

which Dr. B.R. Sarangi,J. is a member, came to a

definite finding that there is no illegality or irregularity

committed by the tribunal in awarding interest for delay // 19 //

in payment of pensionary and other benefits admissible

to the government employee, opposite party therein, in

accordance with the 1992 Rules. Thereby, the Division

Bench of this Court did not interfere with the findings of

the tribunal and upheld the same.

20. In view of the factual matrix and

propositions of law, as discussed above, and applying the

same to the present context, there is no iota of doubt

with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for claim of

interest for delayed payment of pensionary benefits

granted to him. Therefore, this Court unequivocally holds

that the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 18% per

annum for delayed payment of pensioanry dues,

including GPF amount admissible to him. Such amount

should be calculated and paid to the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

four months from the date of communication of this

judgment.

21. The writ petition is thus allowed. No

order to costs.

// 20 //

As the restrictions due to resurgence of

COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for

the parties may utilize a printout of the judgment

available in the High Court's website, at par with certified

copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in

the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587,

dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.

4798 dated 15th April, 2021.

................................

DR. B.R. SARANGI, JUDGE

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd June, 2021, Ajaya/GDS